And my point was that it's all subjective. We're not talking about an objective fact that people are pointing out, we're talking about how one man may have criticisms that the next does not agree with and does not have.

It's all subjective. Moby Dick is a thing, an objective fact. A criticism is someone's opinion.

It's certainly objective that a significant number of critics and viewers did not like MoS and found it dumb and/or boring. That could either mean that they hated the message(s), that the message(s) was poorly-communicated, or that whatever message(s) there was(were) turned out to be wafer-thin. It may be hard to agree on those issues specifically but they're there in some form.

I liked the movie too but there is nothing wrong in acknowledging that it had a tempered response and that this is not due to a random quantum fluctuation.

As an example, I had a hard time following the Superman-Zod fight. It seemed like a big blur. Who was responsible for going into space and going back down? It's hard to tell. A lot of viewers came away with the impression that Superman personally destroyed half the buildings in Metropolis. That's a problem. The action was hard to follow.

It's certainly objective that a significant number of critics and viewers did not like MoS and found it dumb and/or boring. That could either mean that they hated the message(s), that the message(s) was poorly-communicated, or that whatever message(s) there was(were) turned out to be wafer-thin. It may be hard to agree on those issues specifically but they're there in some form.

It's objective whether criticisms exist, obviously they do, no movie is spotless in that regard. But "legitimate criticisms"? That's a subjective point. One man's criticism is another man's treasure.

Quote:

I liked the movie too but there is nothing wrong in acknowledging that it had a tempered response and that this is not due to a random quantum fluctuation.

I do not agree with the criticisms that I have read, I do not believe they are legitimate. I'm not questioning whether criticisms exist, but whether they are legitimate or not.

As an example, I had a hard time following the Superman-Zod fight. It seemed like a big blur. Who was responsible for going into space and going back down? It's hard to tell. A lot of viewers came away with the impression that Superman personally destroyed half the buildings in Metropolis. That's a problem. The action was hard to follow.

While this makes sense, I wouldn't place the blame for people thinking superman wrecked half of Metropolis solely on the film. Some people see what they want to see, extrapolate things and follow the pack mentality when others bring up the destruction. Yes, films can be crappy, but audiences can also be biased.

__________________"Somewhere in our darkest night, we made up the story of a man who will never let us down…" - Grant Morrison.

I do not agree with the criticisms that I have read, I do not believe they are legitimate. I'm not questioning whether criticisms exist, but whether they are legitimate or not.

So you think Smallville and Metropolis were presented well and had a life of their own?

You don't think people criticising how it jumps from Superman screaming in pain at having been forced to execute Zod, to a light hearted, chirpy scene with the General immediately after... is a legitimate criticism?

But then it brings us back to opinion. It's YOUR opinion those things are not legitimate criticisms.

And until you voice your personal criticisms of the movie, why should you be taken as anything other than a blind fanboy who thinks MoS is a flawless masterpiece?

__________________

People think dreams aren't real just because they aren't made of matter, of particles. Dreams are real. But they are made of viewpoints, of images, of memories and puns and lost hopes

As an example, I had a hard time following the Superman-Zod fight. It seemed like a big blur. Who was responsible for going into space and going back down? It's hard to tell. A lot of viewers came away with the impression that Superman personally destroyed half the buildings in Metropolis. That's a problem. The action was hard to follow.

I have to disagree with this notion. The action was not hard to follow, Zod and Superman are shown very clearly doing things. For instance, Zod collapsing a building with his heat vision, Zod flashing through a building and taking Superman by surprise, and throwing Superman across buildings.

The only legitimate criticism is Superman faceplanting Zod to the side of the building. This just goes to show you that the audience can be at fault too.

And what's wrong with that? You need to see people dying for it to be emotionally affecting? For a fun summer blockbuster, I thought some scenes in that battle were pretty intense. It wasn't just a bunch of buildings falling over.

I never said anything was wrong with The Avengers' depiction of destruction. It's just tonally different from Man of Steel is what I was getting at.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Invader34

What are some examples of the "Horrors of war" that MOS shows and TA does not? From what I remember they both showed mass destruction without directly showing human casualties.

Man of Steel explicitly shows (or implies, however you want to look at it) civilians getting crushed by falling buildings and getting violently pummeled by the gravity beam from the World Engine + Zod's ship . It's not graphic, but it's a lot more horrifying in nature that anything The Avengers did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Endless

MoS doesn't specifically show innocent civilians dying either. The difference between that and Avengers, besides tone, is that the Avengers are shown actively saving people, coming up with tactics to isolate the attack to one area etc.

Avengers also shows the aftermath. With people supporting them, being suspicious of them, flat out denying their existence with Stan Lee's cameo.

MoS cuts from Supes screaming in pain to a light hearted scene with the general, then back to Metropolis seemingly back to normal. Same with the Smallville fight. The town is devastated. But no reaction, no aftermath. The fact that Metropolis and Smallville don't get any characterisation of their own doesn't help. Why should i give a **** about some fictional CGI city that hasn't been given a life of it's own?

Compare it with Nolan's Gotham. A fictional city sure. But it's given a sense of life. It's a character of it's own. So when it's under attack we care about it.

The whole no aftermath/public view in Man of Steel is a good argument, and is one of the bigger criticisms I had with film. I'm like 90% sure that will be dealt with in the sequel though. As for the horrors of war, Man of Steel does show civilian deaths. But as I mentioned, while it's not graphic or deliberately shown on screen as a focal point of a scene, it's still horrifying. You hear people scream as they're sucked up by Zod's ship and pummeled violently to the ground by the gravity beam/terraforming process and people are crushed by cars and falling buildings. Military personnel are also shown to be killed, e.g., jets crashing into buildings, that pilot who was hand crushed into a red mist by a Kryptonian, Faora straight up murdering a whole bunch of soldiers. There's more shocking "Oh god" moments whenever you think someone is crushed or is killed in Man of Steel than The Avengers is what I was trying to say. Again, The Avengers depiction of war is more palatable while Man of Still depicts the hard truths of war to serve its narrative, i.e., the film sets up a universe that shows just how dangerous Kryptonians are.

I wish that people would stop using the CGI complaint, because it's quite frankly stupid. You cannot have a proper Superman fight where he fully shows off his powers without a lot of CGI, it's that simply. The same is true for a lot of other superheroes. If you want to critique the quality of the CGI, then fine. But saying "it's only two CGI guys hitting each other," NO S***. That's the only way to do a full-on Superman fight.

I wish that people would stop using the CGI complaint, because it's quite frankly stupid. You cannot have a proper Superman fight where he fully shows off his powers without a lot of CGI, it's that simply. The same is true for a lot of other superheroes. If you want to critique the quality of the CGI, then fine. But saying "it's only two CGI guys hitting each other," NO S***. That's the only way to do a full-on Superman fight.

I was fine with the CGI in MOS, i thought it was really well done.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by zryson

There are always tons of things to enjoy and do. Every day can be an adventure.

There are legitimate criticisms to be made. The pacing is wonky in places (cutting immediately from Superman anguish to what is essentially a comedy scene for example). Some of the supporting cast was underused, etc. However, my problem is that a lot of criticism isn't accurate. They're either misrepresenting what happened in the movie, or just making crap up. Stuff like "Superman wrecked half of Metropolis." NO HE DIDN'T. First off all, half of Metropolis wasn't destroyed period, not even close. Second, Zod's WE/gravity beam combo did 99.9% of the damage before Superman even got there, and then during the final brawl, Zod STILL did the vast majority of the damage. When people make complaints like that, then I take issue with them, because they're not being accurate.

The too much CG complaint reeks of nostalgia-based preconceptions. I seldom hear the Avengers get that complaint.

There would be no way to show the effects of real-time Superspeed without extensive CG. They'd have to time-ramp it in order to use human actors and wire effects. Though a lot of the ground fighting is partially using live actors (as shown by the making of)

I dont like grades but if i had to give it to MOS i would give it a strong 8, 8,5 maybe. When i saw it i thought it was a 9 All in all i was pleasantly surprised the first time i saw it but some of my initial criticisms were still there with repeat viewings. Still a good movie though and i own it on Blu-Ray. Really looking forward to Batman vs. Superman, since i reckon the minor faults i had with MOS will be dealt with in that movie.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by zryson

There are always tons of things to enjoy and do. Every day can be an adventure.

I do think Superman was a bit careless in sone scenes. He never put out any fire. I'm not even talking about getting away from Zod to stop a fire somewhere (the result of the many explosions in the film), but, for example, that scene where the kryptonian ship is flying away after picking up Zod in Smallville. Superman stands right in front of a fricking burnin gas station and never bothers to put out the fire. He simply watches the ship fly away. Or the scene where that truck causes an explosion right before Superman's eyes. He literally just stands there looking at the fireworks. Zod even manages to land a surprise punch because of that.

So my question is: is this Superman capable of freeze breath? Because if he's not, then that would explain why he never did anything in the scenarios I mention above. But if he IS freeze breath capable, then WTF

I do think Superman was a bit careless in sone scenes. He never put out any fire. I'm not even talking about getting away from Zod to stop a fire somewhere (the result of the many explosions in the film), but, for example, that scene where the kryptonian ship is flying away after picking up Zod in Smallville. Superman stands right in front of a fricking burnin gas station and never bothers to put out the fire. He simply watches the ship fly away. Or the scene where that truck causes an explosion right before Superman's eyes. He literally just stands there looking at the fireworks. Zod even manages to land a surprise punch because of that.

Rookie mistakes made by a rookie . While Clark is looking at the fire after that truck explodes, he's probably thinking "Welp! Maybe I should have caught the truck instead." Haha.

30+ years of learning to use his powers and he still makes "rookie mistakes"?

Clark has never had fighting experience. His instinct is literally to contain Zod. He did the best with what he had available (people will bring up the Avengers, but let's not forget each of them had experience stopping a threat).

Well he never fought before. And Superbreath wasn't established. What would he do, beat the flames with his cape?

I do think its a little too convenient they didn't introduce that, as it would've solved 80% of the conflicts in the movie. (I finally watched it, by the way. Kinda boring, honestly.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by InJustice

Clark has never had fighting experience. His instinct is literally to contain Zod. He did the best with what he had available (people will bring up the Avengers, but let's not forget each of them had experience stopping a threat).

Between the oil rig, the school bus, numerous encounters with bullies he surely must have had (even if he didn't fight back, he no doubt noticed their moves), the briefing from Jor-El, and just the basic common sense it takes to dodge a punch and put out a fire (and had he not figured out how to fly around objects by then?), I have a hard time believing he was completely unprepared for a situation like that. And I really don't see any reason why his "morals" should have resulted in him getting knocked around that much.

__________________"You won't kill me out of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness, and I won't kill you because you're just too much fun."

Fighting to Supes was essentially new to him. He never had an opportunity to feel what it was like to see repercussions of what one single punch and the damage he could actually cause from that action.

He was told his whole life to hide his aggression and never to fight back when instigated (hence, the Pa Kent/Clark/Kenny Braverman scene, he wanted to hit him, but knew he couldn't.)

Just like with Supes flying, he never had the opportunity to be set free or have the necessary freedom to perform such a thing.

Sure he could potentially fly, but he had to work on it first and that was shown with him leaping and even crashing into a mountain side before he gathered himself. Combating a military General from his home planet is a big-time task for a being who was mentally drilled to do nothing but hone his abilities.

Fighting and flying is a completely different experience than lifting a pillar up on the oil-rig or pushing a bus out of the creek and that was certainty established for those paying attention.

Between the oil rig, the school bus, numerous encounters with bullies he surely must have had (even if he didn't fight back, he no doubt noticed their moves), the briefing from Jor-El, and just the basic common sense it takes to dodge a punch and put out a fire (and had he not figured out how to fly around objects by then?), I have a hard time believing he was completely unprepared for a situation like that. And I really don't see any reason why his "morals" should have resulted in him getting knocked around that much.

Dodging a punch? How about dealing with superpowered beings, who on top of all of that, have combat experience? It's why you see Superman get mangled around for a while. Mainly because his enemies wanted him dead, while Superman was not actively looking to kill them, just to contain them.

Also flying around a fire could be a risk considering that it can spread the fire if it's not taken out the first time/cause further destruction.